Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine base. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that defendant was not eligible for a reduction under section 3582(c)(2); the mandatory minimum applicable to defendant had not been displaced, and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, did not apply to defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Davis (Johnson)" on Justia Law

The State filed suit against defendants under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. The State sought to recover costs incurred in investigating and addressing groundwater contamination in the Town of Hempstead caused by pollution emanating from the New Cassel Industrial Area (NCIA). The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action as time-barred by the six year statute of limitations governing suits to recover costs for remedial actions under section 9613(g)(2)(B). The court held that the cleanup activities here were implemented as removal measures and continued to be removal measures at all relevant times. Accordingly, the district court erred in applying the statute of limitations for remedial rather than removal actions. The court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "State of New York v. Next Millennium Realty" on Justia Law

HealthBridge appealed from an order of the district court granting a petition brought by the NLRB under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 160(j), seeking to enjoin temporarily alleged unfair labor practices related to a long-running labor dispute between HealthBridge and the Union. The court concluded that the NLRB could contingently delegate the power to authorize 10(j) petitions to the NLRB General Counsel. Such delegations were in effect here and the petition at issue was properly authorized by the General Counsel under those delegations. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, which involved preliminary injunctions generally and not the specific right to injunctive relief created by the NLRA, did not impact the standard for section 10(j) petitions. The district court did not otherwise abuse its discretion in granting the petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kreisberg ex rel. NLRB v. Healthbridge Mgmt." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed an employment discrimination suit against his employer, Wal-mart. Plaintiff's attorney represented to the court that plaintiff had pled a gender discrimination claim when he had not. The district court subsequently reprimanded the attorney and imposed Rule 11 sanctions on her. The attorney appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not apply the correct legal standard where the district court's analysis indicated that it was applying an objective reasonableness test. Under the proper standard, pursuant to In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP, sua sponte sanctions should issue only upon a finding of subjective bad faith. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated the district court's judgment. View "Muhammad v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to his involvement in a scheme to defraud Chase Bank. At issue in this appeal was the district court's order of forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(2). The court concluded that section 982 required forfeiture of the gross receipts attributable to the criminal violation, not only the profits. The court also concluded that, in light of defendant's near total control over the companies and their assets, defendant "indirectly" obtained the Chase loan proceeds and could be held accountable for criminal forfeiture of those proceeds under section 982. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Peter" on Justia Law

Appellant, a convicted sex offender, appealed a condition of supervised release which required him to participate in an approved program of sex offender evaluation and treatment, which could include plethysmograph examinations, as directed by the probation officer. The court held that this extraordinary invasive condition was unjustified, was not reasonably related to the statutory goals of sentencing, and violated appellant's right to substantive due process. Accordingly, the court vacated the condition. View "United States v. McLaurin" on Justia Law